Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by efoote868

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

Forgetting what the C in FRC stands for?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

Forgetting what the C in FRC stands for?

What is your opinion on the two scenarios I presented earlier?

[Abhishek R]

"Hey guys, we need (blank) because we smoked/bent/broke/otherwise destroyed a system on our robot, we couldn't afford to bring spares, would you happen to have one we can use?"

Common situation.

Is our reply going to be the following now?

"We have several but we can't give you any due to the rules, sorry."

[marshall]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I'm arguing that team ZZZZ shouldn't get to compete with 2 team ZZZZ robots instead of 1 team ZZZZ and a third bot.

I have no idea what you are arguing about but...

Originally Posted by efoote868

If you truly have another team's best interest at heart, you want them to do their best regardless of what alliance they compete with.

I think we all want every team to compete at the highest levels but sadly reality dictates to me that I have a finite number of resources with which to impact the teams at an event and you better believe I'm going to put all of them into my alliance for eliminations. Don't get me wrong, I'll go out of my way to help an opposing alliance to give them extra time to repair things by using a timeout or by loaning them parts or expertise but that C still stands for Competition.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by thrystan

What would happen if, a rookie team came to you, or one of the other high ranked teams, on the first day of the competition, and said. We only have a drive base, what can we add to it to help you in the finals. We would like to build a can burglar, create an auto that helps score the robot team points, and build a ramp or two that will help your team in the finals. Will you help us do it.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for a team with no hopes of winning, and no plans on going past one or two districts or regionals, to have a much better event that they could have realistically planned on having with another game.

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

This is almost the model that we used last year at Champs. The difference is that we approached two rookie teams that we had seen in video review and we offered to help them create a mechanism that would make them a strong contributor to their alliances and even put them in place to be on an alliance. We gave each of the teams extra parts that we had brought along. Those teams improved from their regionals to 5-5 and 4-6 in the Newton Division--at one point one of them was 5-1 and was in contention for highest ranked rookie up to the 9th match. It was perhaps the single most satisfying effort we had last year. We would do it in a heartbeat again. (I personally donated $1,000 to one of the teams this year.)

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by efoote868

What is your opinion on the two scenarios I presented earlier?

So long as the team receiving modifications consents to them, I don't see a problem. That means no "hey, do this or we won't pick you / make you sit out" situations.

I would frown upon swapping out so much of a robot that it no longer belongs to its team, but it's hard to define ownership. If FIRST wants to write a rule around this, I think it's going to have to have some "to a reasonably astute observer" clauses in it.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

So long as the team receiving modifications consents to them, I don't see a problem. That means no "hey, do this or we won't pick you / make you sit out" situations.

I would frown upon swapping out so much of a robot that it no longer belongs to its team, but it's hard to define ownership. If FIRST wants to write a rule around this, I think it's going to have to have some "to a reasonably astute observer" clauses in it.

My interpretation of the Q&A is to prevent either scenario, but I disagree with how they did it.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

No, in eliminations, I want my 3rd robot to fit into the strategy that the ALLIANCE deemed necessary to win the regional/district.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by efoote868

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

That's asking the impossible, to help the entire universe of other teams at an event. All teams have to pick and choose who they can help and with what resources. You haven't proposed a feasible alternative criteria for how to narrow that resource deployment. Since this is a "competition" the first one is helping better one's own competitive position. What's the next one?

This gets to another point I make frequently: Do NOT count on the "goodness" of the community to achieve an overall goal. "Social norming" where the community develops behavioral expectations can be helpful, but they will never be sufficiently effective to achieve the overall goal. The goal can only be achieved through effective and holistic design of the rules, mechanisms and incentives.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I think the difference with this year is that, if there's an alliance on the other side with better potential than you, you can't come up with some clever strategy or play amazing defense to beat them. You just have to hope they fail to meet their potential. Not exactly a feel-good moment.

I was thinking more of matches not against you where their loss would move you up in the rankings.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

That is what I think a lot of teams are missing. At least in Texas I know that if any team walked up to 118, 148, 624, 1477, etc and asked for help building a can burgler on Thursday morning their pit would have 3-4 people in it with in minutes working towards that goal. Once a team is on your alliance you take a little more ownership of them and work with them to make themselves better but most of the time all a team has to do is ask and they will get plenty of cheesecake.

Ditto from 1678. See my other post about last year's Champs.

Also, 254 probably would do the same based on their outreach in the Curie Division last year.

I know that 971 is often going from pit to pit to help at their events. We've benefited much in the past.

In short, I can give clear examples of how top tier teams have given virtually unbidden assistance to teams that ask (or sometimes don't know to ask.) That's one of the things I love about this competitive model--it can cost your team to withhold help from another team.

Unfortunately this year's game has created a situation where the required level of help still may not make a team a truly effective alliance member. (See posts in other threads on this issue.) So alternative strategies are necessary to make third-tier robots effective alliance members, which includes technology transfer.

The GDC should have thought this through when they designed a game that is technically equivalent to climbing to the 2nd pyramid rung (or higher) in 2013 or balancing two robots in 2012, but with no alternative meaningful scoring method or other role available.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

No, in eliminations, I want my 3rd robot to fit into the strategy that the ALLIANCE deemed necessary to win the regional/district.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

That's asking the impossible, to help the entire universe of other teams at an event. All teams have to pick and choose who they can help and with what resources. You haven't proposed a feasible alternative criteria for how to narrow that resource deployment. Since this is a "competition" the first one is helping better one's own competitive position. What's the next one?

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

If the 3rd robot is ok with either, both are fine. If, as an alliance, it is determined that the 3rd robot needs a 2-bin grabber and we have a spare version of another, how would it be detrimental to anyone to put it on that 3rd robot? In the same instance, if the alliance members can come together and build a 2-bin grabber before elims and put it on the 3rd robot, how would that be detrimental to anyone?

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

We've served cheesecake to as many teams as we could, but there's only so much to go around. See my other "non cheesecake" post on the limitations of who you can help, and further on considering appropriate incentive design in games to really achieve overall FIRST goals.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by dodar

If the 3rd robot is ok with either, both are fine. If, as an alliance, it is determined that the 3rd robot needs a 2-bin grabber and we have a spare version of another, how would it be detrimental to anyone to put it on that 3rd robot? In the same instance, if the alliance members can come together and build a 2-bin grabber before elims and put it on the 3rd robot, how would that be detrimental to anyone?

Where is the line between providing them with a mechanism and with an entire robot?